NationStates Jolt Archive

I'd like to start this thread to discuss my Proposal named "Deceleration of the Arms Race"

OOC:

First off, it's polite to post your proposal. Not all of us can be bothered to go and look for it. I've done it this time, but you can't always rely on the kindness of strangers.

Deceleration of the Arms Race
A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.

Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Solenial

Description: The United Nations,

RECOGNIZING the destruction of the advanced technology in modern day weaponry.

DETERMINED to Decelerate the pressure of the Arms Race to focus on other important matters.

BELIEVING that member states have the sovereign right to control Arms Manufacturing as this may be a large sector of their Economy.

Also BELIEVING that member states have a responsibility to reduce production of Violent Weaponry.

Hereby:

1. URGES member nations to create national, sub-regional, and regional strategies to combat and control the arms race beyond the confines of this resolution.

2. REQUIRES member nations to provide the UN Defence Agency (UNDA) with updates on the Arms Manufacturing Rate of the member nations to allow member nations to be ensured that they do not fall behind both Economically nor Defensively with the rest of the World.

Approvals: 2 (Solenial, Jellydom)
Status: Lacking Support (requires 112 more approvals)
Voting Ends: Tue Dec 18 2007

Okay, I'm a bit confused. Do you want to slow down the arms race, or speed it up by making sure less well-armed countries can catch up with more well-armed ones?

Both, i don't want well armed ones to lose there claim to much much but to allow less armed nations a chance.

The Priority of this Proposal is to stop the hassle of getting bigger and better weapons because your rival has just got one better than yours, and start to allow governments focus on important issues like Climate Change, Slavery etc.

Of course i have not said that this is Compulsory but it is strongly urged.

OOC- Sorry about not posting the Proposal

Okay, I'm a bit confused. Do you want to slow down the arms race, or speed it up by making sure less well-armed countries can catch up with more well-armed ones?We also are as we find this does nothing but:

1. URGES member nations to create national, sub-regional, and regional strategies to combat and control the arms race beyond the confines of this resolution.That is a wide area as this does not do anything.

2. REQUIRES member nations to provide the UN Defence Agency (UNDA) with updates on the Arms Manufacturing Rate of the member nations to allow member nations to be ensured that they do not fall behind both Economically nor Defensively with the rest of the World.This must be one those sub-sub-sub level committees lost some place under the main levels of the UN in an office.. As if it is established under another resolution then a problem exist should that one be repealed this has no meat to it or committee wondering the lower levels of UN building trying to figure what to do now... as they must be trying to figure out what to do with this.

My suggestion is use it to start a fire, that will set off a fire alarm or maybe provide you some heat or when somebody comes to respond to the alarm they can show you how to get out of that lower lever....

Also there is no way my nation will give anyone a count of how many and what types of weapons systems we have in place and where they might be located. As any information on them being made leads to that.

Both, i don't want well armed ones to lose there claim to much much but to allow less armed nations a chance.Those well armed nations are not going for this and many of the not so well armed ones are not yet at a level to be well armed by your standards.. yet to them they are well armed compared to any enemy they may have... with their bows and arrows not nukes.... so I'd say they already have as good a chance of being a nuke power of good with a bow.

Then you will have the gun banners and antinuke folks who want to see nobody with any form of weapons...

Both, i don't want well armed ones to lose there claim to much much but to allow less armed nations a chance.

The Priority of this Proposal is to stop the hassle of getting bigger and better weapons because your rival has just got one better than yours, and start to allow governments focus on important issues like Climate Change, Slavery etc.

Of course i have not said that this is Compulsory but it is strongly urged.


Ok, here are my problems with this statement and thus the propsal it is explaining:

1. Why are you encouraging some, lightly armed nations to arm while freezing the arms of larger? Wouldn't it be more logical to reduce the arms of the heavily armed while freezing the arms production of other nations... I mean if you want to really 'decelerate' an arms race, rather than just adding more visible and active players to such a race.

So then it seems like your basic arguement is:
"To make more peace, we're going to make sure everyone has a bigger number of guns and just not a few people"

2. Can't we just forgo wasting time with a resolution like this in the United Nations and instead actually tackle the issues you've mentioned? As well, the problems mentioned in the first point clearly make it seem as though these problems will not be met as smaller, yet crucial nations will be more concerned with catching up to the armed nations than tackling real issues.

3. Strongly Urged? So that means the freeze on larger nations won't be likely uniform and the entire plan is pointless? As well meaning that if Smaller Nations are still convinced to make more arms because of this resolution and the Larger Nations basically work-around it all, then all we've got it more weapons, more war and more wasted time.

So then in conclusion, Evoinia is AGAINST.

We think that this deceleration of arming oneself is but a ploy to take advantage of others who would follow this resolution. We would not agree to keep our doors unlocked at night because the masked man asks us politely.

1. This should be (very very) Mild, not Strong.

2. The UNDA doesn't exist. (Does it? I can't believe I missed that one in my absence.)

3. You use a lot of capitalisation which is somewhat suggestive: does 'Violent Weaponry' somehow differ from, presumably, 'Non-Violent Weaponry'?

-- George Madison
UN Ambassador

Also BELIEVING that member states have a responsibility to reduce production of Violent Weaponry.This may be fine in a world where this would apply to all nations in it.. However with three nations waiting for us to leave the door unlocked and give up our guns we don't think so; as that is about the number that of nations out of the UN to each one in it. The only solution I see is to devise a protective system that is entirely defensive and only works on those who go offensive against it then make sure all members have it in place and it is always working.